DOCSLIB.ORG

Philhellenism and Orientalism in Germany Suzanne Marchand

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Philhellenism and Orientalism in Germany Suzanne Marchand Philhellenism and Orientalism in Germany Suzanne Marchand Introduction. The divergence of the disciplines Most readers of Lynchos will probably know something about the history of classical scholarship, and, understandably, regard the period of post- 1790 secularization and specialization as one of great progress. That it was, in many respects; the sharpening of text-critical skills and the driving out of wild speculations and politicized argumentation did indeed lay the foundations for the professionalization of classical scholarship, especially in the university-rich territory of German-speaking central (and especially northern) Europe. But a great part of this professionalizing process – and one under-reported in such classic accounts as Ulrich von Wilamowitz- Moellendorff’s History of classical scholarship (1921) – also entailed the closing of some doors.1 Most obviously being slammed shut were the passageways that once allowed scholars to wander between classics, theo- logy, and the study of the ancient Near East; and as classics and classicists increasingly claimed one set of rooms in the house of ancient history for themselves, they compelled others, too, to adapt to new accommodations. That accommodation is by no means so well-known a story; in part this is the result of the way in which the history of nineteenth-century orien- talist scholarship, too, fails to recognize not only the deep roots of the discipline but also its ongoing focus on the ancient world, and long-lasting classics-envy.2 It is my contention that one gets a much richer and better picture of changes in the disciplinary landscape and the significance of the disciplinary divergences that began around 1790 by recognizing that Orientalistik was, like classics, a child of Christian humanism; it was, importantly, the sibling left to tend the cavernous old house when the classicists remodeled their rooms and locked the doors. By viewing the story of philological specialization from the perspective of this younger sibling – rather than that of the older brother – I hope to illuminate some of the institutional as well as intellectual consequences of the closing of the doors referred to above. At the conclusion of the essay I will discuss a certain sort of re-convergence of classics and Orientalistik at the end of the nineteenth century in the hopes of sparking further inquiry into the relationship between disciplines that once were sister sciences, and now, all too often, view one another as strangers. As numerous works – new and old – have shown, there were vigorous debates in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries about the Carolina Rediviva och de projekterade rummen 167 origins of religion and the Bible’s historical veracity and philosophical originality; arguments raged over who came first, Moses, Plato, or Hermes Trismegistus, as well as over New Testament variants.3 Some of the most respected scholars were men who worked on both biblical and classical texts (or even, too, on some ‘heathen’ ones): examples here would include Joseph Scaliger, Isaac Casaubon, Richard Bentley, and C. G. Heyne. If we take Heyne – the youngest of these figures – as our example, we find a man who, like most other Christian humanists and professional philolo- gists of his day, read both Greek and Hebrew, and moved easily between West and East.4 Thinking more broadly of Heyne’s era, one might recall Friedrich Schlegel’s enormous enthusiasm both for the Greeks and for the ancient Indians, or Herder’s extensive writings on Hebrew poetry; the learned world of Gibbon and the young Goethe found oriental pagans nearly as fascinating as Hellenic ones. Heyne well knew that in his day, most of those with refined philological skills found employment as pastors (as was the case for Herder) or (like himself) as professors in the theolo- gical faculty. No wonder that Heyne advised his student F. A. Wolf that matriculating as a classical philologist in the philosophical faculty would be to set out on “the straight road to starvation”.5 But Wolf, of course, did it anyway. The story of Wolf’s successful pioneering of this specialized path and Prussia’s founding of the classical Gymnasien as gateways to the univer- sities (and thereby, to jobs in the state bureaucracy and to status as a ‘cultured citizen,’ or Bildungsbürger) has been told many times, and need not be told again here.6 What we need to be reminded of is that Wolf’s great triumph in institutionalizing the secular study of the classics was accompanied by a narrowing of the field of ‘scientific’ inquiry; now re- spectable classicists were supposed to leave the New Testament and other religious questions to the theologians, and the study of the Near East to those who specialized in ‘oriental’ languages. The importance of the Creuzer Streit What might happen to a classicist who continued to act as an eighteenth- century érudit was demonstrated by the experience of Friedrich Creuzer, whose wide-ranging, multi-volume Symbolik (1810–12, 1819) became the antithesis of Wolf’s narrowly Greek-focused Darstellung der Altertum- wissenschaft (1807).7 Creuzer – a Greek philologist interested precisely in the subjects Wolf avoided, namely, Greece’s debts to the East, religion, and sexuality – relied upon Hellenistic literature (and some translated oriental texts; he was already typical of the new age in knowing no orien- tal languages himself) to trace the origins of Greek ideas to eastern ances- tors, a project that might have been popular a half-century earlier, but which flew in the face of the philhellenic norms and emerging scientific 168 Suzanne Marchand standards of the early nineteenth century. As George Williamson argues, the words used by Goethe to praise one of Creuzer’s opponents, Gottfried Hermann – “critical, Hellenic, and patriotic” – are telling: “critical, Hellenic, and patriotic” was precisely what Creuzer’s work, in the eyes of the increasingly powerful, liberal Protestant classicists, was not.8 Instead, critics argued, Creuzer’s book gave succor to ‘Romish’ priests, conserva- tive Christian mysticism, and dilettantes. Johann Voss, translator of the Homeric epics – as well as, in the 1780s, of the 1001 Nights9 – penned a two-volume Anti-Symbolik (1824–6) in which he called Creuzer “an agent of the Jesuits” and deplored his sinking of the ideal Greeks in the sexual swamp of the Orient.10 In an 1821 letter to the Austrian diplomat and scholar Joseph von Hammer Purgstall, Creuzer described the vehemence of Voss’s polemics, for him comparable to the condemnation of Bruno by the Inquisition: You must read Voss’s review of the Symbolik to learn how entirely misguided and crazy we are to believe that there were before and after Homer and in addition to this great hero other people in the world. Yes, we must be burnt, along with all others who think anything of the Orient, and of Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha and whatever else the liars are called. We are mystagogues and seducers of the young. In a word, we should renounce the devil and embrace Voss’s Mythologische Briefe as the book of books.11 In the wake of the Anti-Symbolik, Creuzer’s style of scholarship was dead, and the classicists, especially the newfangled specialists, carried the day. If we examine the next generation of German classicists, we find men of extraordinary learning such as Karl Otfried Müller and August Boeckh, but even so, men who largely ignored ‘oriental’ and biblical questions, and did not care for non-Attic or Hellenistic Greeks; J. G. Droysen was a great exception in this regard.12 Classical philology became the model of scientificness, and the Germanies (and especially Prussia) became the place to study the subject. When the Altes Museum opened near the Royal Palace in Berlin in 1830, it was stocked chiefly with classical sculp- tures and plaster casts. Philosophers, artists, and Gymnasium teachers regularly reiterated their belief that Greek sculpture represented the ideal union of natural beauty and artistic excellence and epitomized ancient civilization as a whole.13 It was that civilization – rational, natural, beau- tiful, manly, and free from any taint of religious superstition or aristocratic sumptuousness – that German liberals, in particular, longed to recreate on their own soil. The difficulties of professionalizing Orientalistik Having now very briefly traced the consequences of specialization and the rising influence of philhellenism on the history of classical scholarship Philhellenism and Orientalism in Germany 169 from about 1780 to the mid-nineteenth century, let us now do the same for classics’ ‘sister’ discipline, Orientalistik. It is the case that as early as the 1750s, J. D. Michaelis (who specialized in Hebrew, but also read Arabic and Persian) had begun to treat the Old Testament essentially as an ordinary national history, and to separate theological concerns from the study of secular, oriental history and literature. Appointed to the theological faculty at the University of Göttingen, Michaelis did manage to move to the philosophical faculty – but he did not manage to extricate himself from theological debates, for his work, which fueled the fires of the ‘higher criticism,’ was quite clearly connected to a particular, denomi- national (that is, liberal Protestant) strain of thought.14 Unlike in France, where, after the Revolution, Orientalistik was chiefly pursued by non- believers, in the Germanies, the field as a whole would never fully extri- cate itself from the religious questions that were so central to the major texts in Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Persian and even Egyptian literature.15 This is not to say, of course, that German orientalism was apolitical; on the contrary, debates over the proper means to reconcile science and faith during the Vormärz and after were political debates, as were, too, more ominously, discussions about relations between ‘Aryans’ and Jews; and the latter subject was, incidentally, at mid-century, one that theologians and orientalists, not biologists, were thought competent to address.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pious and Critical Scholarly Paradigms of the Pentateuch •Fl
    Author Biography Spencer is a third year History major from Martinez, California. In addition, he is perusing a minor in Religious Studies. His major research interests involve the study of the Old and New Testament, as well as military history. After graduation, he hopes to take his passion and research to seminary, where he can further his study of the field and history of Biblical criticism. Morgan Pious and Critical Scholarly Paradigms of the Pentateuch — during the 19th & early 20th centuries by Spencer Morgan Abstract This paper examines the antithesis between Christian scholarship and modern higher criticism of the Pentateuch during the 19th and early 20th centuries. During the 19th century, the popularization and eventual hegemony of the Doc- umentary Hypothesis revolutionized the field of Biblical studies. Modern criti- cal scholars claimed that Moses did not write the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) during the 15th century BC, but rather it was the product of a later redaction of at least four separate documents: J, E, P, and D. Writing hundreds of years apart and long after Moses, their authors reflect not the ancient covenantal religion of Moses, but rather various periods in the evolution of Israel’s religion. The implications of the Documentary Hypothe- sis bring into question the historicity and theological validity of not only the Pen- tateuch, but also the Christian New Testament which presupposes it. The goal of this research is to identify the foundational presuppositions, conclusions, and contextual consciousness that both the modern critics and the Reformed body of Christian scholars opposing them brought to their scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • William Robertson Smith, Solomon Schechter and Contemporary Judaism
    https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.jhs.2016v48.026 William Robertson Smith, Solomon Schechter and contemporary Judaism bernhard maier University of Tübingen, Germany* During Solomon Schechter’s first years in the University of Cambridge, one of his most illustrious colleagues was the Scottish Old Testament scholar and Arabist William Robertson Smith (1846–1894), who is today considered to be among the founding fathers of comparative religious studies. Smith was the son of a minister of the strongly evangelical Free Church of Scotland, which had constituted itself in 1843 as a rival to the state-controlled established Church of Scotland. Appointed Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in the Free Church College Aberdeen at the early age of twenty-four, Smith soon came into conflict with the conservative theologians of his church on account of his critical views. After a prolonged heresy trial, he was finally deprived of his Aberdeen chair in 1881. In 1883 he moved to Cambridge, where he served, successively, as Lord Almoner’s Reader in Arabic, University Librarian, and Thomas Adams’s Professor of Arabic. Discussing Schechter’s relations with Robertson Smith, one has to bear in mind that direct contact between Schechter and Smith was confined to a relatively short period of less than five years (1890–94), during which Smith was frequently ill and consequently not resident in Cambridge at all.1 Furthermore, there is not much written evidence, so that several hints and clues that have come down to us are difficult to interpret, our understanding being sometimes based on inference and reasoning by analogy rather than on any certain knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Prophets Postcolonially Initial Insights for a Postcolonial Reading of Prophetic Literature
    ARTICLES PROPHETS POSTCOLONIALLY INITIAL INSIGHTS FOR A POSTCOLONIAL READING OF PROPHETIC LITERATURE Steed Vernyl Davidson Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary / Graduate Theological Union This article examines the conception of the genre prophetic literature and how a postcolonial examination probes its production. A postcolonial engagement can offer more than simply anticolonial resistance dis- course as can be gleaned from the theo-political contexts of prophetic material. Drawing on Homi Bhabha’s reflection on ‘the book’, other postcolonial theorists, as well as genre theory, the article traces elements that constitute a ‘prophetic book’ and interrogates the power of the canonical category ‘prophetic literature’. In the end it offers three defining features of a postcolonially resituated reading of prophetic literature. The relationship between Biblical Studies and Postcolonial Studies rests on the presumption that at multiple levels the Bible exists as a product of empire. This presumption readily leads to the application of postcolonial theory to the reading of biblical texts without a preliminary interrog- ation of the literature that constitutes the body of texts called ‘Bible.’ While biblical critics pay attention to the socio-cultural milieus that generate major portions of the Bible such as Greco- Roman society (Moore 2006; Carter 2001; Liew 1999), classification of biblical material into prophetic literature, gospel, apocalypse, and so on remain unexamined from a postcolonial per- spective. Since the synchronic/diachronic option that the general field of Biblical Studies insists on may be a false choice for most postcolonial biblical scholars, users of postcolonial theory in relation to the Bible tend to probe the Bible as literature from the perspective of what Homi Bhabha regards as ‘the edict of Englishness and the assault of the dark unruly spaces of the earth’ (Bhabha 1994, 107; Sugirtharajah 2005, 2003, 2002, 2001; Boer 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • The Theological Development of the Young Robertson Smith by Donald R
    81 The Theological Development of the Young Robertson Smith by Donald R. Nelson Dr. Nelson, Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities at Michigan State University, was awarded his doctorate by that university in 1969 for a thesis on "The Life and Thought of William Robertson Smith, 1846-1894". Here he studies the early influences on Robertson Smith's thought, and finds that these included deter­ minant philosophical influences as well as those of philological and historical study. RITING in 1889 of the impact of theories of higher criticism upon W the Christian's understanding of the Old Testament, Mary Augusta Ward interpreted "the present collapse of English orthodoxy" as resulting from "one cause only-the invasion ofEnglish by German thought."l Though doubtless there were believers who contested her assessment of the state of the Faith, few would have contradicted her notion that in recent decades British religious insularity had been breached by a theological barrage of Teutonic origin. The publication in 1860 of an incendiary little volume titled Essays and Reviews was a clear warning that the Channel no longer provided protection against "German rationalism." The chief intention of its seven Anglican contributors was to "break down the conspiracy of silence" that they felt had kept otherwise educated people in ignorance of the revolutionary developments that had long before occurred in German theology and biblical study.2 Essays and Reviews, its non-committal title notwithstanding, sparked two ecclesiastical trials and a literary battle of considerable magnitude. When in the eighteen-seventies and eighties the German "historical consciousness" first made its way to Great Britain on a scale sig­ nificant enough to warrant Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Wellhausen, Julius (1844-1918)
    Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet (WiBiLex) Wellhausen, Julius (1844-1918) Meik Gerhards erstellt: Mai 2018 Permanenter Link zum Artikel: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/34720/ Wellhausen, Julius Meik Gerhards Julius Wellhausen gilt als „Bahnbrecher in drei Disziplinen“ (Smend 2006): der Alttestamentlichen und der Neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft sowie der Arabistik. Der Artikel widmet sich Wellhausens Werk als Alttestamentler (vgl. dazu auch Kraus, 255-274; Graf Reventlow, 302-316; Smend 2013b, 436-453; kürzer: Perlitt 2. Au. 1967; Spieckermann; Smend 2006, 16-26; Kratz 2015a, 71-77; 2015b). Seine bedeutendste Leistung auf diesem Gebiet liegt in der Erarbeitung eines neuen Bildes der Geschichte Israels, das ältere Ansätze der Forschung aufnehmend auf der Abb. 1 Julius Wellhausen. Spätdatierung der Gesetzescorpora des Pentateuchs beruht. Das betrit neben dem → Deuteronomium auch die bis dahin üblicherweise früh datierten priesterlichen Gesetze (→ Pentateuchforschung). Wellhausen zeigt auf, dass das kanonische Bild der Geschichte Israels von exilischen Bearbeitungen im Geist des Deuteronomiums geprägt ist (so im Hexateuch und in Richter bis 2Könige; → Deuteronomismus) oder in nachexilischen Neufassungen im Geist der → Priesterschrift vorliegt (→ Chronikbücher). Trägt man entsprechende Überarbeitungen ab, zeigt die ältere Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie, dass Israel bis in spätvorexilische Zeit keine schriftliche Gesetzesgrundlage hatte und weder → Monotheismus noch Kultuszentralisation (→ Josia) kannte. Wellhausens Rekonstruktion der Literargeschichte und der politisch-religiösen Geschichte Israels konnte eine Fülle von Spannungen in den Texten erklären und auösen und wurde so zu einem bis heute prägenden Meilenstein der Forschung. Der Artikel stellt auch die Frage nach dem theologischen Ansatz, der Wellhausens historische Arbeiten bestimmt. Die Frage hängt mit dem „ersten großen Problem einer Wellhausen- Biographie“ (Jepsen, 261) zusammen: den Gründen seines Wechsels von der Theologischen in die Philosophische Fakultät.
    [Show full text]
  • Authorship of the Pentateuch
    M. Bajić: Authorship of the Pentateuch Authorship of the Pentateuch Monika Bajić Biblijski institut, Zagreb [email protected] UDK:27-242 Professional paper Received: April, 2016 Accepted: October, 2016 Summary This piece is a concise summary of the historical and contemporary develo- pment of Pentateuch studies in Old Testament Theology. This article aims to provide information on the possible confirmation of Mosaic authorship. The purpose is to examine how the Documentary Hypothesis, Fragment and Su- pplemental Hypotheses, Form and Traditio-Historical Criticism, Canonical and Literary Criticism have helped to reveal or identify the identity of the author of the Torah. To better understand the mentioned hypotheses, this article presents a brief description of the J, E, D, and P sources. Key words: Pentateuch, authorship, Mosaic authorship, Torah, Documen- tary Hypothesis, Fragment and Supplemental Hypothesis, Form and Tradi- tio-Historical Criticism, Canonical and Literary Criticism. In the most literal sense, the Pentateuch 1 (or Torah) is an anonymous work, but traditional views support the belief of Mosaic authorship (Carpenter 1986, 751- 52). Yet, with the advent of humanism and the Renaissance, the sense of intellec- tual freedom and upswing in research have led to the fact that many have begun to read the Bible critically, trying to challenge its text as well as the traditions and beliefs that are formed from it (Alexander 2003, 61-63). One of the most commonly attacked beliefs is Moses’ authorship of the Torah. There has been an 1 Taken from the Greek translation LXX. Pentateuch is derived from the Greek word pentateu- chos, which means a five-book work, known as the Books of Moses (Carpenter 1986).
    [Show full text]
  • Julius Wellhausen, Anti-Judaism, and Hebrew Bible Scholarship
    religions Article Unapologetic Apologetics: Julius Wellhausen, Anti-Judaism, and Hebrew Bible Scholarship Stacy Davis Department of Religious Studies and Theology Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA; [email protected] Abstract: Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) is in many ways the ancestor of modern Hebrew Bible scholarship. His Prolegomena to the History of Israel condensed decades of source critical work on the Torah into a documentary hypothesis that is still taught today in almost all Hebrew Bible courses in some form. What is not taught as frequently is the anti-Judaism that underpins his hypothesis. This is in part due to unapologetic apologetics regarding Wellhausen’s bias, combined with the insistence that a nineteenth-century scholar cannot be judged by twenty-first century standards. These calls for compassion are made exclusively by white male scholars, leaving Jewish scholars the solitary task of pointing out Wellhausen’s clear anti-Judaism. In a discipline that is already overwhelmingly white, male and Christian, the minimizing of Wellhausen’s racism suggests two things. First, those who may criticize contextual biblical studies done by women and scholars of color have no problem pleading for a contextual understanding of Wellhausen while downplaying the growing anti-Judaism and nationalism that was a part of nineteenth-century Germany. Second, recent calls for inclusion in the Society of Biblical Literature may be well intentioned but ultimately useless if the guild cannot simply call one of its most brilliant founders the biased man that he was. Keywords: Wellhausen; anti-Judaism; historical context Citation: Davis, Stacy. 2021. Unapologetic Apologetics: Julius Wellhausen, Anti-Judaism, and Hebrew Bible Scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philological Apparatus: Science, Text, and Nation in the Nineteenth Century,’ Critical Inquiry 47, No
    NOTE: This item is the archived peer-reviewed author-version of Paul Michael Kurtz, ‘The Philological Apparatus: Science, Text, and Nation in the Nineteenth Century,’ Critical Inquiry 47, no. 4 (2021): 747– 76. The Philological Apparatus: Science, Text, and Nation in the Nineteenth Century Paul Michael Kurtz* Abstract Philology haunts the humanities, through both its defendants and its detractors. This article examines the construction of philology as the premier science of the long nineteenth century in Europe. It aims to bring the history of philology up to date by taking it seriously as a science and giving it the kind of treatment that has dominated the history of science for the last generation: to reveal how practices, instruments, and cooperation create illusions of timeless knowledge. This historical inquiry therefore asks how one modality of text interpretation could morph into an integrated complex of knowledge production, which ostensibly explained the whole human world. Ultimately, it advances a central argument: philology operated as a relational system, one that concealed diversity and disunity, projected unity and stability, and seemed to rise above the material conditions of its own making. The essay scrutinizes the composition of philology as a heterogeneous ensemble, the functioning of philology comparable to other sciences, whether human or natural, and the historical contingency in the consolidation of philology. * For critical engagement, I am indebted to Ankur Barua, Marieke Dhont, Simon Goldhill, Nathan MacDonald, Harald Samuel, Emiliano Urciuoli, and Rebecca Van Hove—but Bernard Geoghegan most of all. Valuable suggestions also came from the editorial board of CI. Earlier drafts of this essay were workshopped at “Biblical Scholarship and Theology in the Nineteenth Century,” a seminar hosted in CRASSH at the University of Cambridge, and at “Discipline Formation in the Modern Human Sciences,” a colloquium organized by the Sarton Centre for History of Science at Ghent University.
    [Show full text]
  • GENESIS in the PENTATEUCH Konrad Schmid I in the Heyday of the Documentary Hypothesis It Was a Common Assumption That Most Texts
    GENESIS IN THE PENTATEUCH Konrad Schmid Introduction In the heyday of the Documentary Hypothesis it was a common assumption that most texts in Genesis were to be interpreted as elements of narra- tive threads that extended beyond the book of Genesis and at least had a pentateuchal or hexateuchal scope (J, E, and P). To a certain degree, exe- gesis of the book of Genesis was therefore tantamount to exegesis of the book of Genesis in the Pentateuch or Hexateuch. The Theologische Realen- zyklopädie, one of the major lexica in the German-speaking realm, has for example no entry for “Genesis” but only for the “Pentateuch” and its alleged sources. At the same time, it was also recognized that the material—oral or written—which was processed and reworked by the authors of the sources J, E, and P originated within a more modest narrative perspective that was limited to the single stories or story cycles, a view emphasized especially by Julius Wellhausen, Hermann Gunkel, Kurt Galling, and Martin Noth:1 J and E were not authors, but collectors.2 Gunkel even went a step further: “‘J’ and ‘E’ are not individual writers, but schools of narrators.”3 But with the successful reception of Gerhard von Rad’s 1938 hypothesis of a tradi- tional matrix now accessible through the “historical creeds” like Deut 26:5– 9, which was assumed to have also been the intellectual background of the older oral material, biblical scholarship began to lose sight of the view taken by Wellhausen, Gunkel, Galling, and Noth. In addition, von Rad saw J and 1 Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1899); Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (6th ed.; HKAT 1/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964 [repr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Farewell to the Yahwist? the Composition of the Pentateuch In
    A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta CONTENTS Abbreviations ...............................................................................................vii Introduction Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid..................................................1 Part 1: Main Papers The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research Thomas Christian Römer ..........................................................................9 The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus Konrad Schmid .......................................................................................29 The Jacob Story and the Beginning of the Formation of the Pentateuch Albert de Pury ........................................................................................51 The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus Jan Christian Gertz ................................................................................73 The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua Erhard Blum ..........................................................................................89 The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis Thomas B. Dozeman ............................................................................107 Part 2: Responses The Yahwist and the Redactional Link between Genesis and Exodus Christoph Levin ....................................................................................131
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter One: The Scholarly Origins of JE 11 Hermann Hupfeld 13 Karl Heinrich Graf 19 Abraham Kuenen 24 Julius Wellhausen 27 August Dillmann 37 Eduard Riehm 40 Conclusion 43 Chapter Two: JE and the Documentary Hypothesis in the Twentieth Century 45 Hermann Gunkel 46 Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth 48 Rudolf Smend, Otto Eissfeldt, et al 51 Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph 54 Rolf Rendtorff, et al 60 Brevard Childs 78 John Van Seters 85 Richard E. Friedman 94 Conclusion 97 Chapter Three: The Relationship of D to J and E 99 Deut 1:9-18: Appointing of judges 106 Deut 1:19-45: The spies 114 Deut 2:2-3:11: Edom, Sihon, and Og 130 Deut 3:12-20: Apportioning the Transjordan 141 Deut 4:10-14; 5:2-5, 19-28; 9:8-21, 25-10:5: Horeb 153 Deut 8:15-16: Testing in the wilderness 172 Deut 9:22-24: Additional examples of disobedience in the wilderness 173 Deut 10:6-9: Travel and the Lévites 179 Bibliografische Informationen digitalisiert durch http://d-nb.info/992561043 X Table of Contents Deut 1 l:2b-6: The acts of YHWH 181 Deut 23:4-6: Ammonites, Moabites, and Balaam 184 Deut 25:17-19: Amalek 184 Deut 31:1-8: The authority of Joshua 185 Conclusion 188 Excursus: The Relationship of P to JE 197 Chapter Four: RJE - The Reliance on the Redactor 209 Factual Discrepancies 211 Genesis 16:8-10 211 Genesis 21:32, 34 and 26:15, 18 213 Exodus 4:13-16, et al 218 Exodus 34:1, 4 221 Exodus 32-34 223 Terminological Overlap 225 Genesis 20:18 228 Genesis 28:21 230 Genesis 31:3 232 Exodus 3:7 234 Secondary Additions 236 Exodus 3:14, 15* 237
    [Show full text]
  • The Biblical Account of Origins
    Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/1 (Spring 2003): 4–43. Article copyright © 2003 by Richard M. Davidson. The Biblical Account of Origins Richard M. Davidson Andrews University Introduction The basic elements in the biblical account of origins are summarized in the opening verse of the Bible, Gen 1:1: I. ÒIn the beginningÓÑthe ÒwhenÓ of origins; II. ÒGodÓÑthe ÒWhoÓ of origins; III. ÒcreatedÓÑthe ÒhowÓ of origins; IV. Òthe heavens and the earthÓÑthe ÒwhatÓ of origins. In this paper we will take up each of these elements in turn, with special emphasis upon the ÒwhenÓ1 and aspects of the other elements that impinge upon the relationship between Scripture and science. I. The ÒWhenÓ: ÒIn the BeginningÓ In discussing the ÒwhenÓ of creation, a number of questions arise for which an answer may be sought in the biblical text. Does Gen 1Ð2 describe an absolute or relative beginning? Does the Genesis account intend to present a literal, his- torical portrayal of origins, or is some kind of non-literal interpretation implied in the text? Does the biblical text of Gen 1 describe a single creation event (en- compassed within the creation week), or is there a prior creation described in Gen 1:1, with some kind of gap implied between the description of Gen 1:1 and 1 This emphasis upon the ÒwhenÓ of creation is in stark contrast with that of, e.g., Raymond F. Cottrell, ÒInspiration and Authority of the Bible in Relation to Phenomena of the Natural World,Ó in Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and Theological Perspectives, ed.
    [Show full text]